The Morning Plum

By
Greg Sargent

* Congressional GOP formally takes power today: With House Republicans set to assume the majority at noon, Paul Kane lays out the long-term game plan: The real action will come after all the symbolic efforts to repeal Obama's agenda, when House Republicans try to "force Obama into what they consider principled compromises."

Also key: The GOP's expanded Senate minority means that Dems will suddenly need at least seven Republicans to vote with them in order to overcome filibusters, considerably expanding Mitch McConnell's power and capacity to extract concessions from Dems. One key question now: Will this town's media elite start seriously placing some of the onus for cooperation and governing on the GOP? Or will the default position continue to be that Obama and Dems are almost entirely responsible for overcoming disagreement and gridlock and for "changing the tone" in Washington?

* GOP already scaling back goals for budget cuts? Jackie Calmes has a good piece reporting that GOP leaders are quietly acknowledging that they may need to downsize their budget cut plans by as much as half.

Also important: Calmes notes that while GOP leaders are currently claiming that their original goal of $100 billion in cuts was hypothetical, in fact it was the figure in the House GOP's "Pledge to America" of last September.

* Incoming House GOP faces major Tea Party challenge: Relatedly, GOP lobbyist Vin Weber offers an apt description of the challenge House GOPers face in managing the restive Tea Partyers, who will get very angry if Obama's agenda -- not to mention the entire federal government -- isn't immediately dismantled from top to bottom:

"They have no sense of the limits on a party that controls only one of the three seats of power. Managing that relationship is going to be difficult."

* Also: Dalia Lithwick has a very nice piece noting that "this is an opportunity to engage in a reasoned discussion of what the Constitution does and does not do," and patiently explaining to the Tea Partyers that "the Constitution wasn't written to reflect the views of any one American."

* White House gears up anti-repeal push: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius makes the full case against repeal, suggesting the White House is gearing up to use repeal as an opportunity to sell the American public once again on what the law actually does.

* About Obama and that Guantanamo statement: In case you need to get caught up on that developing story about the President perhaps signing a statement nixing Congressional limits on his ability to close Guantanamo, Dan Froomkin has a lucid and useful overview of the situation.

* Hallucinatory attack line of the day: GOP Rep. Jack Kingston appears to believe that the food safety bill, which is under attack by Republicans over its cost, will result in thousands of "food police" inspecting your "girl scout cookies."

Poor Republican money managers, every week that goes by their prospects for 2012 grow dimmer. Whose idea was that TP thing anyway? Sure it might have helped them snag a lower House majority, but its candidates sure didn't translate to the Senate...and it is absolutely toxic when it comes to Republicans trying to get back into the White House. The TP won't get behind Romney and that is who they have to nominate if they want to have any chance against Obama.

"You cannot ignore the strength of this report. As a consequence of this report we are taking our payrolls estimate higher for sure. Small business continues to add jobs. With small business now beginning to start to ramp up hiring, it's safe to feel better about the labor backdrop."

Those added jobs are probably causing some midnight Republican oil to be burned, they have to figure out a way to deprecate the news, how about credit it to "government hiring" of "regulators and vbureaucrats out to hamstring American competiveness? Yeah, that should work, got a nice beat, you can dance to it.

Then they have to figure out a way to reverse it and get a lot more people out of work. What's good for American workers is BAD for Republicans.

Now that the recovery is picking up the lagging indicators (housing will be last, since its securitzation (oh, what a word said the witch) was at the center of the economic collapse), Democrats will have to stay on message and on the offensive. But there is no chance of that happening, ask Tim Kaine.

"There is a similar air of vacuous fundamentalism in requiring that every bill cite the Constitutional power given to Congress to enact it. The new House leadership says this is necessary because the health care law and other measures that Republicans do not like have veered from the Constitution. But it is the judiciary that ultimately decides when a law is unconstitutional, not the transitory occupant of the speaker’s chair.

All of this, though, is simply eyewash — the equivalent of a flag-draped background to a speech — compared with the actual legislation the Republicans plan to pass. And though much of that has no possibility of being enacted, it does suggest the depth of the struggle to come. The bill tauntingly titled the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” has nothing to do with increasing employment and will never reach the Senate floor, but shows that the leadership is willing to threaten the hard-fought access to health care for millions of the uninsured, just to make a political point."

Really gotta wonder about RainForest / 37th .. *everyone* has him blocked, *nobody* reads a word he posts, not *one word* and still he keeps it up, day in day out, thread after thread and probably lots of other blogs on here too.

Well no Democratic candidate for President has gotten more than half of the white vote since LBJ, but that probably doesn't mean anything, just a coincidence or something that makes no difference, no causal relationship, no matter, no, not at all.

And I expect you to effect a dramatic change in Senate procedure that goes beyond even anything that Senator Udall has proposed.

As part of that process, I expect a mechanism to be established that ensures that ALL of Obama's exisiting political and judicial appointees receive immediate consideration and approval, and that all FUTURE nominees also receive up-or-down votes on the floor without delay.

While I agree in theory with the idea of debate over the meaning/interpretations of the Constitution occuring in Congress/the Press/American civic life, I'm less sanguine about the possibility that this is anything more than a stunt.

It was cooked up by the brothers koch, like a gram of coke cooked up on a bent spoon. The partier inhales & gets a quick, brain-cell killing jolt of a high before crashing, hard, disillusioned and seeking another fix of koch.

Yes Chuck, those who don't see a difference between the parties are looking at macroeconomic policy, foreign policy and other areas which in many respects, have merged, rhetoric notwithstanding. But when it comes to the SCOTUS, well, that is why the White House is worth the fight.

When it comes to egregious self promotion it seems that Mr Sargent has some catching up to do. Today's attempt is actually very funny:
====================
One key question now: Will this town's media elite start seriously placing some of the onus for cooperation and governing on the GOP? Or will the default position continue to be that Obama and Dems are almost entirely responsible for overcoming disagreement and gridlock and for "changing the tone" in Washington?
==================

Yes, the entire future of the free world rests on the decisions of folks like Eugene Robinson or Byron York, right?

Apparently it is no longer enough for the media to report facts sans editorializing. Now Mr Sargent insists that the reportage be altered to display his favored partisans in the best possible light.

I wonder what the boys and girls at the journ-o-list have decided to do relative to Mr Sargent's concern. No doubt the answer is somewhere between "call them racists" and "do violence to them if they have the nerve to disagree with us."

(AP) — Colorado-based Focus on the Family is considering ending its sponsorship of a national conservative political action rally because of the involvement of a gay conservative group. Sarah Palin and Mike Hucakbee are among those scheduled to speak at the conference.

Let's ask Jim DeMint, since he said at last year's "values voters" meeting, there is no such thing as a fiscal conservative who is not also a social conservative, can there really be a gay conservative group? No such thing, right Jim?

@NoVA: "I think this is similar to the public option debate. there really wasn't much of one."

There is one massive difference that you're neglecting, NoVA. The public option debate was about SOMETHING. The GOP's rhetoric, on the other hand, is meaningless ideological drivel, hot air in the abstract.

There is NO WAY that Americans would ever let the GOP destroy the social programs that have made America a Super Power. There would be blood in the streets and everyone knows it (except for the Tea Partiers who are, at this point, clearly incapable of critical thinking).

And in the world according to Clarence, the 4th doesn't protect school girls' privacy from school officials disturbed by the prospect they might be hiding something down there. Zero tolerance is more important than a "reasonable expectation of privacy", it says that in the Constitution somewhere, right Clarence?

The Lithwick piece, like all these other recent ones by Greg and Dionne et al is nothing but another series of straw men and evasions, centering around this fuzzy notion that in interpreting the Constitution we should recognize it as a flawed set of compromises by flawed politicians.

So there is a simple question, Greg. What aspects of the Constitution do you consider to be flaws that can be corrected by the courts or ignored by Congress?

I'd really like you to answer that question, Greg. And please don't try to dodge it or say that isn't your position.

The liberals like to cite Breyer's claim that we can't be bound by the "dead hand" of the past. That's a nice slogan for liberals. But it evades the question: is the Constitution binding on our government and its officials? Not the "dead hand" but the Constitution. If they are not bound by the Constitution, from where does their authority derive?

And if we aren't bound by the "dead hand of the past," then why are we bound by precedents from the New Deal era, or the Warren Court, or Roe?

"* Filibuster reform update: With Senate Dems set to introduce a package of changes today, reform picks up the qualified endorsement of the Post editorial board, which will help drive opinion in Congress."

While I am sure the WaPo retains influence in the Senate, I would hope that the filibuster reform were written, but set six years out, by a strong bipartisan vote. The delay would allow each party to think in more objective and statesmanlike terms and would make it less likely that each new Senate would exercise its nuclear option.

I suppose it is possible to get 60 votes for something immediate, but to also have a weeping bipartisan reform that takes place six years in the future. Eat one's cake and have it, too.

"There is one massive difference that you're neglecting, NoVA. The public option debate was about SOMETHING. The GOP's rhetoric, on the other hand, is meaningless ideological drivel, hot air in the abstract."

That's a fair point, about it being about a specific idea or program, which the GOP outside of Ryan hasn't addressed. But i would describe it as gutless, and not meaningless.

"There is NO WAY that Americans would ever let the GOP destroy the social programs that have made America a Super Power."

Are you talking about student loans and early-childhood education? I won't comment on the pre-k stuff, because I don't know much about it. But as much as we want everyone to do to college, i think we have to consider whether these low-interest loans are contributing to increased personal debt. We're encouraging people to take on debt for jobs that aren't there. The Post's own personal finance columnist has written about this problem. These loans also contribute to skyrocketing tuition costs.

Ethan, Glen Beck is falling as fast as he rose. I wonder if he knows how badly he over-exposed himself. Too late! Ratings melting away. Oh what a world, he never, ever should have let people know he made himself appear to cry over America's fate under Obama...with VapoRub.

ah yes, the hits just keep on coming:
===========
You can put that in the bank. The GOP is already in self-destruct mode and it's only the first day. Yeah you bedwetters are gonna repeal ACA. With a slim minority in one chamber.

==========

Having a read a few of your comments it is clear that name calling is all you've got on offer. How sad for you.

quarterback1 writes
"What aspects of the Constitution do you consider to be flaws that can be corrected by the courts or ignored by Congress?"

You're putting words in Greg's mouth. But I'll start. The founders - the literal authors of the Constitution - themselves found it flawed & immediately amended it, ten times (ten times!), to give us the bill of rights.

More to the point, where I think you're going wrong is in the word 'flaws' and the subsequent interpretation of what that means. I'd replace 'flaws' with 'imperfect.' The Constitution is not a perfect document - it is imperfect. That imperfection is conceded in the preamble of the Constitution itself, which says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Further, I don't think there can be a 'perfect' constitution. I think the one we have is pretty good, particularly because it notes its own imperfections by defining the means by which it can be changed - the amendment process.

"i think we have to consider whether these low-interest loans are contributing to increased personal debt"

You really should read about student loan reform that was attached to the HCR bill. It strips out billions of taxpayer dollars from going to middle men, a useless divestiture of money with no substantive benefit whatsoever, and re-focuses federal college loans back on the middle class families they were designed to help.

If someone can't get behind reforms that save taxpayer money from being literally wasted and instead direct it to middle class families who need the support, then who are you serving? You are ONLY serving the banks. Not America. Not students. Certainly not the middle class of this country.

Honestly, if anyone is interested in substantively supporting the middle class, they should simply NEVER vote for a single Republican ever again.

NoVaHockey writes
"We're encouraging people to take on debt for jobs that aren't there. The Post's own personal finance columnist has written about this problem. These loans also contribute to skyrocketing tuition costs."

What came first, the chicken or the egg? Which is to say, who or what is the prime mover for job creation?

To some degree, I suspect we're creating too many of the wrong kinds of college graduates. Its not the number of graduates that are the problem, so much as the knowledge & skills they have to offer. The larger problem was reported by NPR yesterday, which did a story on how the military is having a harder time finding qualified recruits - huge numbers of people fail the knowledge test, despite having high school diplomas, and additional numbers fail the physical. It is not a stretch to argue that our deteriorating education system is becoming a security problem. As noted in that story, the private sector demands comparable skills & knowledge as the military; if the military is having a hard itme finding qualified high school graduates to fill its ranks, it should come as no surprise that we aren't preparing kids very well for the private sector either.

Nothing creates by humans is perfect. I've never heard anyone on the right claim otherwise.

The question is what consequences follow from acceptance of imperfection. Are courts and Congress free to ignore provisional they find flawed or as Greg has suggested less than truly democratic? If not, what is the point of arguing that constitutional interpretation must proceed from a view that the document is a flawed set of political compromises.

The conservative position is very simple. There's is an amendment process to address changing needs or flaws. But the text is binding until amended.

"You really should read about student loan reform that was attached to the HCR bill. It strips out billions of taxpayer dollars from going to middle men, a useless divestiture of money with no substantive benefit whatsoever, and re-focuses federal college loans back on the middle class families they were designed to help."

My problem is that we're offering the loans. If changing who is servicing them is saves money, that's good, but my point is that the goal of providing access to college is actually causing more problems than it solving. We're helping- encouraging even - kids take on debt in return for low-wage jobs.

See the Chronicle of Higher education: http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-great-college-degree-scam/28067

I don't think the GOP really thinks it has a chance in 2012. Look at the field--it's even more ludicrous than the "Gary Hart and the 7 Dwarves" field the Dems had in 1988. Huckabee and Romney have both been governors, albeit of small and regionally identified states. Most of the rest are House members who are unknown and lacking in either charisma or brains or both or eccentrics. Jeb Bush the dark horse is the only plausible candidate.

More evidence: The Mitch McConnell Senate isn't going to give a GOP candidate any accomplishments or platform to run on. The GOPers in Congress are solely concentrating on themselves and their own power. They talk about defeating Obama because their base loves it, not because they think they can really do it. They are happy in the Congressional critics role.

The real fight for the soul of this country will come in 2016, when things will be much, much worse, at least in terms of climate, inequality and financial instability, and we will see just how far propaganda can go in distracting and swaying the electorate from addressing its problems.

Quaterback, I admire your attempt to have an insightful discussion with some of the regulars here. The folks didn't disappoint me. They responded with the usual vacuous nonsense.

You are asking an important question. It boils down to this: what did Ezra Klein mean? What specific parts of the constitution have Mr Klein and his liberal sycophants so bewildered? If the constitution is really too dense for us to arrive at a common understanding of its meaning, what limits to government power currently exist?

Rather than engage in that discussion folks like Chuck and Ethan prefer childishness. While that's not surprising considering the source it really speaks very poorly for liberalism in general.

This is just too funny:
==============
There is NO WAY that Americans would ever let the GOP destroy the social programs that have made America a Super Power. There would be blood in the streets and everyone knows it (except for the Tea Partiers who are, at this point, clearly incapable of critical thinking).

=================

I've read a fair amount of military history and I honestly don't recall anyone claiming that we would have lost WW2 if not for AFDC, TANF, Section 8 and Medicaid.

Mimi, I was right with you (obviously) on the GOP's prospects for 2012: no va. But you said by 2016, "...things will be much, much worse"

This is the outstanding question. It ain't necessarily so. If you knew that to be true, you would live your life differently than if you hope that it isn't true. Six years from now things could be quite similar to the way they are now. I didn't want to go all David Carradine with some "Kung Fu" Buddhisms, "like the river, everything changes...yet everything remains the same," but I just did.

I think the Republicans may make a comeback in 2016, I've always thought that. They were in too big a hurry last year and now they have to retrench, but I think they'll have a shot at the White House when Obama leaves. They might get serious by then.

"The text is binding until amended".
Are you serious? If its so self-evident, why have Federal Judiciary?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 5, 2011 11:25 AM | Report abuse "

I am serious, but you aren't. Have you actually read the pieces by Lithwick, Dionne, Ellis, Klein and the PL proprietors, all of which are accusing the right of making a "fetish" out of the Constitution? As yourself what that accusation means.

It is not a point about ambiguities. It is a claim that the document should be treated as a "flawed" set of political compromises that is not binding on us today, rather than as a "sacred" text.

The "sacred" text taunt is of course a straw man. Conservatives don't view the document as "sacred," merely as binding.

This is why liberals cannot win this debate, despite the bravado of Greg and his crew of anti-fetishists. There is an inherent contradiction in their position. They are trying to lay claim to the Constitution at the same time they denigrate it as a nonbinding historical artifact of its times and flawed writers. Liberals are stuck with that contradiction, because they are always stuck with trying to twist and evade the document's terms to justify their latest notion of "progress."

Incumbents usually win. You don't want it to be true when it's not your guy in office, but it is. It usually takes a primary challenge, a 3rd party challenge, or both for an incumbent to lose, and, even then, there usually has to be someone running against the incumbent who is broadly appealing, especially to swing-voters and moderates. A polarizing candidate (like Sarah Palin) may really excite the base, but the fact is, that candidate is not likely to beat an incumbent president.

There are exceptions, but they are few. I still say Obama wins in 2012, but Senate Democrats better not expect much in the way of coat tails.

"... the military is having a hard time finding qualified high school graduates to fill its ranks, it should come as no surprise that we aren't preparing kids very well for the private sector either."

This is not just a rhetorical flourish and I am not talking about Xe.
Military and private sector job skills, qualifications and performance metrics have never been more aligned and that is a very good thing.

@shrink2: "I think the Republicans may make a comeback in 2016, I've always thought that."

If not 2016, then maybe big wins in the 2018 midterms, or they succeed in unseating an incumbent by 2020 (unseating an incumbent is statistically more likely when they (the icumbent) are a member of the party that has been in power for increasingly longer period of time). If Democrats held the Whitehouse up through 2024, it would take a miracle to keep them in for another 4 years.

The idea that there will be some sort of permanent shift in our system to permanently favor one party or the other is always wishful thinking of partisans in either party. Some can minimize the wins in November, but the reality is, it's a sign that both parties are weak and strong, have assets and deficits, and can and will both win and lose.

"They were in too big a hurry last year and now they have to retrench"

And anger all the people who thought the Republicans were going to lower the oceans and magically bring the hope and change--oops, I'm confused. But, safe to say, many Republican voters are already being disappointed by the folks they voted for. Expect it to be worse two years from now.

"but I think they'll have a shot at the White House when Obama leaves. They might get serious by then."

Even if not, they're much more likely to win when neither candidate running is currently in the Whitehouse.

It's very similar to Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the subject, who (as I recall) thought the constitution should be torn up and redone every generation. specifically because life was for the living, and a framework established 50 or 100 years ago could not possibly accommodate all the needs of a future generation. I think this is a horrible idea (look no further than the Eurozone Constitution) but Thomas Jefferson was on board for not just amending the constitution, but totally start from scratch. But then, he never thought much of the constitution in the first place.

When James Madison first showed him the text of the constitution, Jefferson basically said: "Well, that's a good first effort, I suppose. Now, why don't you go back and try to draft a real one?" I'm paraphrasing, but . . .

NoVaHockey writes
"How about Justice Brennan: "It is arrogant to pretend that from our vantage we can gauge accurately the intent of the Framers on application of principle to specific, contemporary questions" "

I don't see where Justice Brennan is arguing that the need for quick action trumps the framework in that excerpt.

Kevin_Willis writes
"The idea that there will be some sort of permanent shift in our system to permanently favor one party or the other is always wishful thinking of partisans in either party."

Right. I don't want either party to retain any kind of permanent control of gov't. For one thing, neither party has all the answers. But what I do want - and I think I speak for a lot of moderates/independents when I say this - I want the parties to sever their ties to the more extreme ideologies. And we do see those kinds of permanent shifts in the parties, for instance when the Dems chose to be the party of civil rights, despite the significant hit to their popularity in certain parts of the country. I'd rather see the Repubs make a similar shift, but back towards Rooseveltian (TR) Republicanism.

"It is arrogant to pretend that from our vantage we can gauge accurately the intent of the Framers on application of principle to specific, contemporary questions"

Um. What?!

It's not arrogant.

It's precisely the job that the Framers themselves put to the Judiciary. That's why we have a Judiciary. The Framers knew that the document was -- and still is -- a compromise among the signatories, and thus, it was -- and still is -- an inherently "imperfect" document that REQUIRES analysis and interpretation.

"I don't see where Justice Brennan is arguing that the need for quick action trumps the framework in that excerpt."

Really, I see that as a green light for Congress to do pretty much what it pleases -- Brennen's statement captures the idea that we shouldn't let the constitution impede progress. This is standard progressive stuff -- the constitutional is outdated and should evolve with the time, scientific advances, etc.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.